Page images

police justice, where the captain made
a complaint against the mate and the
crew for mutiny and desertion. The
justice informed the captain that he
had no jurisdiction, but he directed a
policeman to take the men into cus-
tody, and they were locked up. The
captain then went before the Prus-
sian consul, and made complaint, re-
questing that the crew be punished,
and that they be kept in custody pre-
liminarily, and stating that he could
not receive the mate on board again.
The consul then issued a requisition,
to a commissioner of the Circuit Court
of the United States, stating that the
men had deserted, and asking for a
warrant to arrest the men, and “if
said charge be true,” that they be de-
tained until there should be an oppor-
tunity to send them back. This
requisition the captain took to the
police justice, who thereupon, without
examination, committed all the men
to the county jail, where they lay for
ten days.

On the direction of the
consul, they were then released, and
came to the consul's office, where they
were advised to go to the ship, and
ask the captain for their wages. Some
of them went, and the captain agreed
to meet the crew at the consul's office
next day. He came there, but the
parties failed to meet each other, and
thereafter the seamen executed assign-
ments of their wages to the mate, but
without consideration, and he filed
this libel against the vessel, to recover
the wages of all. The captain was
part owner of the ship. He defended
the suit, and claimed that the men
had forfeited their wages by deser-
tion; that they had agreed in the
articles not to bring the suit; and
that the Court, under the treaty be-
tween the United States and Prussia,
had no jurisdiction.

Held, That, as to the mate and L.,
there could be no pretense of deser-
tion, for they left the vessel with the
captain's consent;

That, as the other seamen only left
the ship, without taking their clothes,
to go and see the consul, the charge
of desertion was not made out against

That the conduct of the captain, in
imprisoning the men, was uplawful,
and sufficient to dissolve the contract
of the mariners ;

BT. VOL. IV.-39

That no law permits the imprison-
ment of deserters in our jails, except
on proof of the facts before a compe-
tent tribunal ;

That the men were not prevented
from bringing this suit by the clause
in the articles referring to that pro-
vision of the German mercantile law,
that “the seaman is not allowed to
sue the master in a foreign port,” be-
cause this is not a suit against the
master, and the master having, by his
unlawful conduct, absolved the men
from their agreement, had absolved
them from this portion of it with the

That the clause in the treaty be.
tween the United States and Prussia,
that “the consuls, vice consuls, and
commercial agents shall have the
right, as such, to act as judges and
arbitrators, in such differences as may
arise between the captains and crews
of the vessels belonging to the nation
whose interests are committed to
their charge, without the interference
of the local authorities, unless, &c.,
&c.," was not sufficient to oust this
Court of its jurisdiction over this con-

Whether this clause has any appli-
cation to suits in rem-quore.

That the Prussian consul had not
acted in this matter as judge or arbi.
trator, which words must be taken in
their ordinary sense, implying inves-
tigation of facts upon evidence, the
exercise of judgment as to their effect,
and a determination thereon ;

That the consul is not a Court, and
neither bis record nor his testimony
is conclusive on this Court;

That, as the consul, though really
appointed as consul of the North
German Union, was recognized by the
Executive Department as consul of
Prussia by virtue of such appoint-
ment, the action of the Executive
was binding on the Court, and he
must be held to be the Prussian con-

That the seamen might file a peti-
tion to be now made co-libellants, and
on such petition being filed, and the
cancellation of their assignments to
the mate, they would be entitled to
decrees for their wages.

In admiralty, minors are allowed
to sue for wages in their own names.
The Elwin Kreplin,



1. The bark John Griffin was libelled

as forfeited for a violation of the 50th
section of the Act of March 20, 1799,
for smuggling cigars. One Albreu,
who owned the cigars, testified that
the captain of the bark, in Havana,
had made an agreement to smuggle
the cigars for him ; that he sent the
cigars from Havana to Matanzas,
where the bark was lying, and re-
ceived a letter from the captain say-
ing they were shipped, that he then
came to New York, and after the
arrival of the bark in New York, re.
ceived his cigars, which were brought
him by a carman, and paid the cap-
tain the agreed freight. It also ap-
peared in evidence that on the seizure
of the cigars Albreu's papers were
also seized, among which were the
invoices of the cigars from Havana to
Matanzas, and the letter from the
captain. The captain denied that the
cigars ever were on board the vessel,
and otherwise contradicted Albreu,
but gave no satisfactory explanation
of the letter. Some other testimony
was given confirming some parts of
Albreu's story. His character for
truth was seriously impeached.

Held, that the evidence sufficiently
sustained the charge against the ves-
sel, and that she must be forfeited.

The Government assumes no obli.
gations towards ship owners to pre-
vent fraudulent discharges of cargo,
and the liability of the vessel is the
same whether the officers of the cus-
toms do or do not prevent such dis-

charges. The John Grifin, 19
2. An information was filed against the

steamship Queen and her master, al-
leging that the vessel belonged, in
whole or in part, to a citizen or citi.
zens of the United States, and charg-
ing that certain merchandise, not in-
cluded in the manifest on board, had
been imported by her into the United
States, contrary to section 24 of the
Act of March 2, 1799, which, for such
offence, imposes upon the master a
forfeiture equal to the value of the
goods not included in the manifest,
and that, by section 8 of the Act of
July 18, 1866, the vessel is holden for
the payment of the penalty against
the master, and becomes liable to be

seized and proceeded against, by
libel. to recover the same. The
answer of the owners of the vessel
denied the allegations of the infor-
mation, and especially that they were
citizens of or resident's in the United
States, and excepted to the informa-
tion as alleging no cause of action
against the vessel, inasmuch as it did
not show that the master or owners
of the vessel had been convicted of
the acts complained of. The answer
of the master also denied the state..
ments of the information and excepted
to it, in that it did not set forth a joint
cause of action against the vessel and
the master, and in that parties were
improperly joined, and in that the
parties joined were entitled to differ-
ent modes of trial, and in that this
action could not be sustained against
the vessel and the master jointly.
The suit, as to both vessel and mas-
ter, was tried before the Court with-
out a jury, as a civil cause of Admi-
ralty and maritime jurisdiction :

Held, That it was clearly proved
that the violation of the law set forth
in the information was committed.

That the vessel was a British ves-
sel, and that, as, under the law, it is
immaterial whether the offending
vessel is a vessel of the United States
or a foreign vessel, the information
might be amended without terms, in
respect to the ownership of the vessel,
and by averring a violation of sec-
tion 25 of the act of 1866, which ex-
tends the provision of the Act of 1799
to vessels owned, in whole or in part,
by foreigners.

That the Court bad jurisdiction to
enforce the penalty against the vessel,
in such a proceeding as this, without -
a trial by jury.

That the vessel might be proceeded
against for the penalty, irrespective
of any proceeding against the master.

That the suit to recover the penalty
against the master was a suit at com.
mon law, and he was entitled to a trial
by jury, under the seventh Amend.
ment of the Constitution of the United

That the right to recover against
the vessel in the present form of pro-
ceeding was clear, and, as the answer
of the master excepted to the informa-
tion on the ground that the suit could
not be maintained against the vessel


and master jointly, and because they 644), none of these goods could have
were entitled to different modes of been intended to be on the manifest,
trial, and the answer of the vessel did and all must have been intended to
pot except to, such joinder, the in- be landed, and the steamer was, there.
formation would be dismissed as to fore, liable for the penalty of the
the master, and a degree entered value of the goods, under the 8th sec-
against the vessel. The Queen, 237 tion of the Act of July 18, 1866 (14

Stars. at Large, 180). The Vissouri,
3. As a general rule it is not contrary to

law, to import or bring into the
United States goods subject to duty
without having paid or accounted for

such duties.
Goods are brought into the United

States as soon as they are brought
into its territory, and the act of their 1789, March 2, Imports,

importation is complete when they July 31, Seizures,
are voluntarily brought into a port of Sept. 24, Judiciary, 76, 77, 79,
delivery, with intent to unlade them

242, 243, 530, 539

1790, August 4, Seizures, 530, 531, 536
There is no case, in which a penalty 1792, May 8, Process, 81, 530, 531, 532,
or forfeiture is incurred, or any crime

535, 536, 537, 538, 541, 542, 543,
or offence committed, simply because

the duties on imported goods are not 1793, March 2, Practice,

paid, or accounted for before the im- 1797, March 3, Forfeiture,

portation is complete. It is by acts 1799, March 2, Imports, 20, 239, 240,
or omissions subsequent to the im-

411, 461, 462, 463, 464, 466, 526,
portation, that forfeitures or penalties

531, 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 541,
are incurred or crimes or offences

542, 543, 545
committed, unless there is some law 1804, March 26, Limitation, 461, 462,
expressly declaring the importation

463, 464
itself,or the manner of making it, un- 1829, March 2, Treaty with Prussia, 422

1839, February 28, Judiciary, 461, 462,
The secret and clandestine manner

463, 464
of the importation with the intent to 1842, August 23, Judiciary,

80, 510
defraud the revenue, and not the non- August 30, Smuggling, 373
payment of or not accounting for the 1846, August 8, Treaty with Prussia,
duties prior to the importation, con-

stitutes the gist of the offence of 1853, February 26, Costs,

smuggling under the 19th section of July 26, Costs,

the act of August 30, 1842. The U. 1861, March 2, Tariff, 551, 555, 536, 557
S. v. Thomas,


July 10, Non-intercourse, 373, 374
4. On the arrival of a steamer from Hav. 1862, July 14, Pensions,

331, 335
ana at the port of New York, several July 14, Tariff,

lots of cigars, no one of which lots 1863, March 3, Limitations, 461
consisted of as many as three thou- 1864, April 29, Collisions, 30, 114, 156,
sand, or had any shipping marks on

160, 216, 217, 220, 312, 313
them, were found in different parts of 1864, June 30, Banking,

the vessel. No permits were obtained July 4, Pensions, 335, 336, 337
by any one for the landing of any of 1865, March 3, Pensions, 335, 336
these lots, and they were not on the March 3, Bonds, 379, 380, 382
manifest, and were not returned by 1866, April 12, Redemption, 379
the officers as landed with the cargo: July, Navigation,

Held, That, as no entry of cigars oi July 18, Imports, 239, 240, 371,
less than three thousand in a single

372, 373, 374, 410, 528, 529,535
package can be made, (14 Stats. at

540, 544
Large, 328), and as all goods on the July 28, Imports,

manifest must be designated by a 1867, February 18, Imports, 240
shipping mark, (1 Sluts. at La ge, March 2, Sce BANKRUPTCY Act,




1867, July 27, Bankruptcy,

329 river and the Kills. On reaching the
1868, July 20, Internal Revenue, 352, mouth of the river, inside of which

473, 475, 479. there was good anchorage and a safe
1869, February 24, Copper, 648, 551, harbor, there was found outside a

656 high wind and a heavy sea. The

steamer, however, went out, and, not

being able to cross the flats, the tide

being ebb, took a circuitous route by
Merchant Shipping Act,

32, 36

the channel, going by South Amboy
and down around the buoy at tail of

the flats, and so around to Perth Am-

boy. While making this passage, two

of the canal boats were sunk by the
Where the owners of a vessel permitted violence of the sea and the dashing of
one K. to act as master of the vessel

the boats against each other :
while she was getting ready for sea, Held, That it showed a want of or-
the understanding being that he

dinary care for the steamboat to ven.
should command her as master if he ture out with such a tow when she
should purchase an interest in her,
and one of the owners made oath at

That, the violence of the sca fur-
the custom house that K. was the

nishing an adequate cause for the
owner, and K. cleared her at the

disaster, and the steamboat being in
custom house as master, but, fail.

fault for placing the boats in such cir-
ing to purchase an interest, was dis- cumstances, she must be held to strict
placed as master:

proof of any negligent act on the part
Held, That the owners could not of the boats, which she claimed to
now be permitted to say that K. had

have been contributory. The Blanche
not the ordinary power of a master to Page,
order stores for the voyage.

That they were liable for stores, 3. Where a steamtug was employed to
ordered by him, which were proper tow out a ship, which was lying stern
for the voyage and were used on the out at Pier 37 East River, and, har.
vessel. Stringham v. Schloener, 16

ing attached a hawser to her stern,
towed her out stern foremost into

the river, and then cast off the hawser

and attempted to come alongside and
take another hawser from the ship's

starboard bow, and the hands on

board the ship failed to promptly

catch the heaving-lines, and before the
1. Where a tug was employed to take a hawser could be properly attached,

schooner out of a slip from alongside the ship drifted stern foremost against
another vessel, and the men on the a pier on the opposite side of the
schooner gave no directions as to the river, and received injury:
mode or time of taking her out, and Held, That the injury was
in taking her out, her stay caught the sioned' by negligence on the part of
yard-arm of the other vessel, and her the tug, in towing the ship so far out
topmast was carried away:

into the river, before casting off the
Held, That the tug was bound to hawser. It should have been cast off
adopt a method of taking the schooner

as soon as the ship had fairly cleared
out without injury,

the New York piers.
That the method selected was man. That the tug was liable for the
ifestly hazardous, and the tug was damages. The M. A. Lennox,

liable for the damages occasioned by
her want of success. The M. d. 4. A tow-boat took several vessels in


tow to tow them through Hell Gate

from New York. The tide was food,
2. A steamboat agreed to tow certain and the weather fair. After passing

canal boats from New Brunswick to through the Gate, one of the vessels
New York, by way of the Raritan struck some obstruction under water,
head, near which was a sunken pier,
whose presence was known to the
master of the tug, and on which the
barge struck:


causing her to leak, and making it of the master of the tug, whereby the
necessary to run her ashore. Her tug had not full control of the barge;
owner filed a libel against the tug, that another tug, passing close by the
claiming that the tug had taken in tow, raised a swell, which, with the
tow more vessels than she could man. tide, gave the barge a sheer towards
age, and that the vessel was allowed the dock, which the tug was not able
to be carried by the tide out of the to check, owing to the slackening of
channel, and to strike a rock on the the bow line; and that the collision
shore. The tug claimed, on the other was caused by inevitable accident:
hand, that the vessel struck a sunken Held, that, as the tug had acquiesced
wreck in the channel :

in the slackening of the bow line, she
Held, That, on the evidence, the tug became responsible for whatever con-
had taken in tow more vessels than sequences resulted from that arrange-
she had power to manage.

That, therefore, the burden was That the tide was known and ought
upon her to prove that the object to have been calculated for, and the
which the vessel struck was one the effect of the passing of the other tug
presence of which the tug was not ought to have been guarded against.
bound to have known.

That the circumstances, therefore,
That she had failed to show this, did not make out a case of inevitable
and was, therefore, liable for the dam- accident. The Olive Baker, 173
ages. The George Farrell, 316

See COLLISION, 7, 10, 13.
5. A tug is liable for damages resulting,

from negligence in her navigation, to
a vessel in tow, whether she is towing
under a contract or not. The Deer,


6. A tug was towing a barge to a bulk-

Held, That the running of the barge
upon the pier was conclusive evidence

of negligence on the part of the tug,
in the absence of proof of any vis The defendants, having presented at


the sub-treasury of the United States
7. Where the defence was set up that a certain seven-thirty notes of the
barge, injured by being towed against

United States, to be retired under the
a sunken pier, was too heavily loaded provisions of the Act of April 12th,
and was too weak;

1866 (14 U. S. Stat. at Large, 31),
Held, That, as it was not shown that and having received the money there-
she was too heavily loaded for a barge for, it was afterwards claimed by the
which was to perform her voyage

Government that eighteen of them
without being subjected to the blow were counterfeits, and an action of
which she reccived, nor that she was assumpsit was brought by the United
not sufficiently strong for the ordinary

States against the defendants, to re-
purposes of the voyage she was on, cover the moneys paid for such al-
the defence was not available.

leged counterfeits.

Held, That, in order to entitle the
8. A barge, while under tow, lashed to United States to recover, it was neces-

the side of a tug, was injured by a sary for them to prove that the
collision with a vessel lying at a dock. eighteen notes were delivered to the
On the part of the tug, it was claimed United States by the defendants, that
that the collision was caused by the the United States paid their money
slackening of the bow line between for them, and that they were not
the barge and the tug, by some one in issued by the United States under
charge of the barge, against the will any Act of Congress.


« PreviousContinue »